#government

The consequences of getting caught in this expanding digital cage can be dire. In rural China, a family’s home is ringed by security cameras that alert authorities whenever they try to go to Beijing to complain about local officials. Near San Antonio, a driver is stopped as part of a secretive U.S. Border Patrol program that uses license plate readers to monitor millions of drivers and detain those whose travel patterns are deemed suspicious. In Gaza, AI-powered technology helps the Israeli military decide who to kill.

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but this appears to be misrepresentation of the situation. The "truck to transport supplies to a well" is not an operating cost. It's a capital expense since it is expense directly going into creating a long-term, income-producing asset (the well). Sticking with his fast-food example, "trucking ingredients from a distributor to the restaurant" to be eaten by patrons in a couple days is most certainly not a long-term, income-producing asset, so it is an operating cost.

Contrasting the expenses included in “intangible drilling costs” with intangible assets shows how intangible is a misnomer in the case of IDCs. An oil producer hiring a truck to transport supplies to a well is clearly not analogous to, say, a company buying up the intellectual property rights to a beloved children’s cartoon character, or the trademark of a fast-food brand. To stick with the fast-food company example, the analogous cost to trucking supplies to an oil well would be trucking ingredients from a distributor to the restaurant—an everyday operating cost of doing business.

Intangible drilling costs are called “intangible” to distinguish them from tangible drilling costs, namely drilling equipment, but it would be more accurate to call IDCs operating drilling costs. Allowing companies to fully expense operating costs is an uncontroversial feature of the tax code across industries, and IDCs are just how operating costs are categorized in the context of oil and gas extraction.

Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. How it all got started:

2013 Despite talk of everything being “on the table,” oil’s tax perks survive the fiscal-cliff negotiations. Congressional Democrats introduce five bills targeting tax giveaways for oil and gas companies. Their death is all but assured, especially in the Republican-controlled House. In April, Obama introduces his 2014 budget, which includes $23 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency over 10 years and permanent tax cuts for renewable power generation. It also would end “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” In contrast, the gop budget proposed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan targets “federal intervention and corporate-welfare spending” by cutting subsidies for renewables. Tax breaks for oil are left untouched.

The oil depletion allowance in American (US) tax law is a tax break claimable by anyone with an economic interest in a mineral deposit or standing timber. The principle is that the asset is a capital investment that is a wasting asset, and therefore depreciation can reasonably be offset (effectively as a capital loss) against income.

The allowance encouraged people who were taxed at a high marginal rate to invest in, perhaps risky, oil ventures. If the venture failed, then the costs would effectively reduce income, so the effective loss at a 90% marginal rate would only be 10% of the actual investment. Conversely if the venture was successful, an amount up to initial investment (under cost depletion, see below) would be tax free. Under the percentage depletion method the amount could potentially be even greater. The oil depletion allowance has been subject of interest because one method (percentage depletion) of claiming the allowance makes it possible to write off more than the whole capital cost of the asset.

Percentage depletion: With this method, a fixed percentage of the gross income is treated as deductible. The percentage is dependent on the nature of the resource being extracted. It is possible under this scheme for the total deductibles (or indeed the annual deductible) to exceed the original capital investment.

Over the nine decades of its existence since 1916, the oil depletion allowance has benefitted oil companies and the petrochemical industry by more than $470 billion as of 2014, everything else being equal.

Federal tax concessions for oil and gas are the largest of all incentives, amounting to over 70 per- cent of all tax-related allowances for energy. Regulation of prices on oil for stripper wells or new wells, and related incentives, comprises the second largest amount of incentives aimed at a partic- ular energy type. In the R&D category, nuclear energy received about 45 percent of the expenditures since 1950, coal about 23 percent, and renewables about 17 percent of the total. Some additional observations on the data:  Oil and gas received 54 percent ($554 billion) of federal spending to support energy since 1950. Oil alone received three-fourths ($414 billion) of this amount.

That’s the New York Times, CNN, CNBC, NBC, and the Guardian all confidently telling their readers that Trump can magically override state sovereignty with a memo. These aren’t fringe blogs—these are supposedly serious news organizations with actual editors who apparently skipped the day they taught how the federal government works. They have failed the most simple journalistic test of “don’t print lies in the newspaper.”

Executive orders aren’t laws. They’re memos. Fancy, official memos that tell federal employees how to do their jobs, but memos nonetheless. You want to change what states can and can’t do? You need this little thing called “Congress” to pass this other little thing called “legislation.” Trump can’t just declare state laws invalid any more than he can declare himself emperor of Mars.

But here’s where this gets kinda funny (in a stupid way): that “interstate commerce” language could backfire spectacularly. Almost all state laws trying to regulate the internet—from child safety laws to age verification to the various attempts at content moderation laws—might run afoul of the dormant commerce clause by attempting to regulate interstate commerce if what the admin here claims is true (it’s not really true, but if the Supreme Court buys it…). Courts had been hesitant to use this nuclear option because it would essentially wipe out the entire patchwork of state internet regulation that’s been building for years, and a few decades of work in other areas that hasn’t really been challenged. Also, because they’ve mostly been able to invalidate those laws using the simple and straightforward First Amendment.

The real story here isn’t that Trump signed some groundbreaking AI policy—it’s that the entire mainstream media apparatus completely failed to understand the most basic principles of American government. Executive orders aren’t magic spells that override federalism. They’re memos.

Instead of presenting a new indictment to the full panel after it rejected one of the counts, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan gave the grand jury’s foreperson an updated version — not seen by the other grand jurors — to sign.

The cities’ move to exempt the records from disclosure was a dangerous attempt to deny transparency and reflects another problem with the massive amount of data that police departments collect through Flock cameras and store on Flock servers: the wiggle room cities seek when public data is hosted on a private company’s server.

If a government agency is conducting mass surveillance, EFF supports individuals’ access to data collected specifically on them, at the very least. And to address legitimate privacy concerns, governments can and should redact personal information in these records while still disclosing information about how the systems work and the data that they capture.

Research by Harvard Business School Professor Alberto Cavallo illustrates the downward trend in the price levels for many retail goods, followed by an acceleration after tariff announcements. Prices on both imported and domestic goods have climbed modestly but steadily since March, even if the hike is still small relative to the size of the tariffs.

The researchers created indexes with daily prices collected by PriceStats, a private firm cofounded by Cavallo that provides online data for over 350,000 products sold by five major US retailers. The indexes allow them to track price changes in specific categories and from countries of origin. Overall, the prices of imported products have increased faster than those made in the US. An extended analysis, going back to January 2024, explores price changes of goods relative to their pre-tariff trend.

Current Tariff Rate: Consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 17.9%, the highest since 1934. After consumption shifts, the average tariff rate will be 17.4%. (If IEEPA tariffs are invalidated, the rate would be 9.1%.)

Overall Price Level & Distributional Effects: TBL assumes the Federal Reserve “looks through” the tariffs and allows prices to rise such that the tax burden is felt through prices rather than nominal incomes. The price level rises by 1.3% in the short run, representing a loss of $1,800 for the average household and $1,000 for households at the bottom of the income distribution. (Without IEEPA, the price level impact would instead be 0.6%.)

Thune was personally responsible for adding the text to the bill, sources told ABC News.

According to the bill text, senators may seek up to $500,000 in statutory damages if their phone records are subpoenaed without their knowledge.

The language is inside one of the three full-year spending bills that the Senate included in its government funding package. The House is expected to approve the bill as soon as Wednesday.

"Any Senator whose Senate data, or the Senate data of whose Senate office, has been acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed, or disclosed in violation of this section may bring a civil action against the United States if the violation was committed by an officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any Federal department or agency," the bill reads.

The language appears to be directly related to complaints by a group of Republican senators that their phone records were subpoenaed without prior notification by Smith as part of his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Last month, attorneys representing Smith sent a letter to Grassley seeking to correct what they call "inaccurate" claims that Smith wiretapped or spied on Republican lawmakers as part of his investigation.

Smith's office sought limited phone toll data from the eight senators and a member of the House in the days surrounding Jan. 6.

While such records would not involve the content of any phone calls or messages, multiple Republicans on the committee incorrectly claimed at the hearing the next day that Smith had "tapped" their phones or "spied" on them.

The bill would likely open a pathway for the eight senators to seek damages from the government for Smith's action.

Graham said Wednesday he would "definitely" sue.

Amid a lobbying blitz and a flood of campaign cash, senators inserted language into this week’s emergency spending bill that eliminates rules designed to prevent food contamination and foodborne illnesses at farms and restaurants, according to legislative text reviewed by The Lever. The bill would also limit the development of rules to regulate ultra-processed foods, despite such foods being derided by the “Make America Healthy Again Movement,” championed by President Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Last year saw a doubling of Americans who were hospitalized or killed by contaminated food outbreaks, according to data compiled by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In all, there are now “10 million cases of foodborne illnesses annually in the United States (and) these illnesses result in about 53,300 hospitalizations and over 900 deaths,” according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office. Despite that, the new funding bill blocks federal rules designed to trace sources of outbreaks, and to prevent contamination of produce. One provision in the legislation states that no funds “may be used to administer or enforce the ‘Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods,’ published on Nov. 21, 2022.” Originally proposed by the first Trump administration during the pandemic when COVID-19 posed severe risks of contaminating food systems, the Food and Drug Administration’s traceability rule aimed to establish new record-keeping standards for companies to track their food products across the supply chain. Those records could help regulators identify the point of origin in the event of a major disease outbreak or food contamination event. The rule applied to produce, seafood, and certain dairy products, such as cheese, and exempted small businesses from the rule.

The record showed that during Smith's investigation, his office sought limited phone toll data from eight senators and a member of the House in the days surrounding the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

While such records would not involve the content of any phone calls or messages, multiple Republicans on the committee incorrectly claimed at the hearing the next day that Smith had "tapped" their phones or "spied" on them.

"The subpoena's limited temporal range is consistent with a focused effort to confirm or refute reports by multiple news outlets that during and after the January 6 riots at the Capitol, President Trump and his surrogates attempted to call Senators to urge them to delay certification of the 2020 election results," Breuer and Koski wrote. "In fact, by the time Mr. Smith's team conducted the toll records analysis, it had been reported that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani tried calling Senators for such a purpose, with one Senator releasing a voicemail from Mr. Giuliani."

Has anyone considered that they are lawmakers and could consider reforming the law to prevent the gerrymandering rather than accentuate it?

The 50 year mortgage is a scam. I’m just not sure if the administration actually knows that or not.

By the numbers: Consider someone taking out a $500,000 home loan. The current rate on a 30-year mortgage is 6.22%, per Freddie Mac. For these calculations, let's assume that a 50-year loan's interest rate exceeds the 30-year by the same margin that the 30-year rate exceeds a 15-year rate.

That translates to a 6.94% rate on the 50-year loan — which would then have a monthly payment of $2,985, only $83 less than the 30-year mortgage. Zoom in: In the early decades of the loan's repayment, the 50-year borrower's payments would almost entirely go to interest, paying down the debt much more slowly.

After five years, for example, the 30-year borrower would have paid off $33,481 of the loan balance, versus $6,707 for the 50-year borrower. After three decades, when the 30-year mortgage is fully paid off, the 50-year borrower would still owe about $387,000.

A theme throughout the argument was a concern shared among several justices and the plaintiffs, summed up neatly by Gorsuch: “Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” the Trump appointed justice said. “It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”

“We will never get this power back if the government wins this case,” said Neal Katyal, who represented the small businesses challenging Trump’s initiative. “What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”

Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House and a representative from Louisiana, has offered several explanations for the delay in swearing in Grijalva—ranging from waiting until all votes were certified in the special election (despite not requiring Republicans who also won special elections to wait) to claiming the House needed to return from recess (despite precedent showing new members are typically sworn in the day after their election, regardless of whether the House is in session). Most recently, Johnson has said Grijalva will not be sworn in until the government reopens.

At the time, Johnson said he could not swear in Grijalva during a pro forma session: "The House is not on the floor doing business this week, but we will do it immediately early next week as soon as everyone returns to town. We have to have everybody here and we'll swear her in."

Not including the special election in Arizona's 7th Congressional District, there have been three other special elections this year to fill vacancies in the 119th Congress (2025-2027). Johnson swore in the three winners—Randy Fine (R-Fla.), Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.), and James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)—of those special elections the day after their respective elections. Both Fine and Patronis were sworn in during a pro forma session.

During the 113th through the 118th Congresses, three other special election winners—Reps. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc.), Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.)—were sworn in during pro forma sessions. All three of those special elections were to fill vacancies in the 116th Congress (2019-2021).